Will Google Searches Set a Legal Precedent in the Crypto Heist Trial?

Two MIT-educated brothers, Anton and James Peraire-Bueno, are facing charges related to a $25 million cryptocurrency theft executed through an exploit in Ethereum’s MEV-boost system. In a Manhattan federal court filing, the brothers have sought to exclude their Google search history from being used as evidence in their trial. The searches, including queries for “top crypto lawyers” and “wire fraud statute of limitations,” occurred after the alleged crime and during consultations with attorneys following the April 2023 incident. The defense argues that the searches do not provide direct evidence of criminal intent and that the content of the searches themselves does not show consciousness of guilt [1].

The prosecution has labeled the case as the first known manipulation of the MEV-boost system, a protocol that allows external builders to recommend transaction bundles for Ethereum validators. The brothers are accused of exploiting this mechanism to intercept private blockchain transactions and redirect $25 million in just 12 seconds [1]. Defense attorneys provided detailed privilege logs showing that the Google searches coincided precisely with attorney communications, suggesting that the searches were part of a legal consultation process rather than evidence of premeditated fraud [1].

The defense has highlighted the lack of witnesses who can provide context for the searches, asserting that any criminal inference drawn from the search history is speculative. Alex Chandra, a partner at IGNOS Law Alliance, commented on the issue, noting that while Google search histories can offer hints, they are context-dependent and not definitive proof of intent or guilt [1]. The defense further requests that the court exclude news articles and a screenshot of a tweet from pseudonymous researcher Samczsun, arguing that these materials are hearsay and unauthorized [1].

U.S. District Judge Jessica G.L. Clarke has yet to rule on whether the Google search history and the other materials can be admitted into evidence [1]. The outcome of this motion could significantly impact the prosecution’s case, as the evidence hinges on demonstrating intent and planning. Legal experts have emphasized that searches conducted after a crime are less convincing than those done before, as the latter could suggest premeditation [1]. The brothers face 20 years in prison if convicted of conspiracy, wire fraud, and money laundering [1].

This case highlights the complexities of using digital footprints in cybercrime trials. While search history can sometimes provide insights into a defendant’s mindset, it is not a standalone indicator of guilt. The defense’s argument underscores the need for context and corroboration when interpreting such evidence. The court’s decision will set a precedent for how digital evidence is evaluated in high-profile cryptocurrency-related prosecutions [1].